(_For the Mirror._)
Of all the great men of his age, there were few who attained to the
celebrity of Edmund Burke; there were many, however, who deserved it
more and whom a more adverse fortune compelled to languish in
comparative obscurity. That Burke was a man of wonderful talent it would
be in vain to deny, and indeed such denial would be only a proof of our
own ignorance and bad taste; but his strength was that of imagination
merely,--his genius was not sufficiently counterbalanced by judgment,
and he has been at all times ranked as an elegant rather than a nervous
writer. In his oratory, as well us his literary composition, he was too
much addicted to a florid phraseology, and his hearers, during his
lifetime, as well as his readers now, were often driven to consider his
meaning, and not unfrequently to make one out for themselves. This style
of declamation has been not unaptly called "splendid nonsense," and it
was after a display of this sort from Burke, that one of his audience
made this pithy exclamation: "It is all very well, but I should like to
hear it over again, that I might consider the _sense_." Burke also dealt
in paradoxes occasionally; in short, he will seldom satisfy a careful
reader, and his most ardent admirers have been known to confess
themselves rather pleased than edified by his works. By way of specimen,
as to the remarks we have ventured to make, we shall endeavour to take
to pieces the following sophism, for a sophism we cannot help
considering it:--
"Duties are not voluntary; duty and will are even contradictory
terms."--"Men have an extreme disrelish to be told of their duty; this
is, of course, because every duty is a limitation of power."
These two sentences are taken from different parts of the writings of
Burke, but they are the same in tendency, though not in expression; they
imply simply, that duty is a restraint, and that our duties and our
inclinations call us different roads. Let us first consider what the
term "duty" signifies. From Johnson we get this explanation of it: "What
we are bound to do by the impulse of nature, the dictates of law, or the
voice of reason." Now, to take these three cases as they stand, nature
has surely ordained everything for our advantage, and therefore in
obeying her, we have rather an accession than a diminution of power;
with respect to ourselves, the calls of nature are even agreeable to us;
and as far as our duties concern others, men seem in general to perform
their natural duties willingly, such as a duty to a child, a parent, &c.
Then with regard to the duties imposed on us by law, many of these
appear indeed at first to be great and unnecessary restraints, but if we
examine the matter, we shall find that very few laws have been framed
that have not rather good than evil for their object. Society doubtless
imposes many restrictions on its members, but it also confers far
greater comparative advantages in lieu of them, so that if we were
fairly to weigh the benefits received, against the losses sustained, we
should find law to be a blessing, without which we could not exist in
any real comfort; and we should see clearly then it gives power and
elevates, rather than shackles or debases us. As to these legal duties
being voluntary with all men, every day proves that they are not; but
with all reasonable persons they must be, for we ought surely to perform
that willingly, which is not only intended, but actually is, for our
good. It is the perverse nature of man, that looks on the dark side of
things, and forgetting the ultimate advantage to be derived, considers
only the partial and trivial annoyances that necessarily attend its
completion. The duties dictated by reason are the only duties that
remain: it is difficult to separate these entirely from natural duties;
perhaps I may be allowed to call "Prayer" or "Thanksgiving to God" a
reasonable duty, (for it is not a natural one, or the brutes would
practise it in common with ourselves.) Now this is a duty, that if it is
performed at all, is performed voluntarily, for it is clearly in a man's
own choice to do it or not, there being no compulsory power to enforce
prayer; as to this duty being a limitation of power, its observance does
indeed imply a state of dependence, and is an indirect admission that we
are creatures at the disposal of another; but that is not exactly the
point; it is no limitation of power in this sense; it takes away no
power we were before possessed of.